Gosh, it sure seems that Google is a propoganda machine of late.
Touting 700k activations without defining "activations" is simply misleading.
Between the crap flowing from Schmidt, and now Rubin, I dont know who is the better liar.
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
...are there a dozen or so posts here debating the metric in the first place???
...are there a dozen or so posts here debating the metric in the first place???
No, there's a dozen doubters perhaps looking for some way to brush the statement away.
Google considers an activation to be just what most of us would. You buy a smartphone and have a carrier activate it so it can be used as one. Google's activation numbers don't include resold devices (repeats) or software updates, with each device only counted once. The numbers also don't include any forked versions of Android since they don't have a license to Google services. Asian knock-offs, the Kindle Fire, the Nook Color or any other device not offering a license to Google services aren't counted in their activation numbers.
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It's what you did when you bought your iPhone. You activated it with a carrier so it could be used as one.
700k android devices. (define devices???)
Sure, most are phones, and the release says they are new activations...
But isnt in the realm of possibility that Google is inflating these numbers for media hype?
Corporate execs have done far less to bolster their position in highly competitive markets.
Sure, most are phones, and the release says they are new activations...
But isnt in the realm of possibility that Google is inflating these numbers for media hype?
Corporate execs have done far less to bolster their position in highly competitive markets.
You might be one of those I mentioned earlier then. There are going to be certain posters who won't trust any answer other than one that comes from Apple.
I don't think there's anything else that might satisfy you if "in the realm of possibility" is the threshold.
You might be one of those I mentioned earlier then. There are going to be certain posters who won't trust any answer other than one that comes from Apple.
I don't think there's anything else that might satisfy you if "in the realm of possibility" is the threshold.
They weren?t shy about the success of their Samsung Galaxy S, announcing they?ve sold 10 million units and also enjoyed ?strong year-end demand? with the Galaxy Tab. But the Galaxy S wasn?t their only winner: they sold 280 million units on the year, making me wonder what the device-by-device breakdown would be. Other stats they slide into their smartphone summary include:
Record 4th quarter operating profit of 1.3 Billion (up 38%)
4th quarter revenue of 12.8 Billion
Total 2010 Revenue = 37 Billion
Total 2010 Profit = 3.8 Billion
While the Galaxy S hit a sweet spot, Samsung is planning to grow in two related and nearby opportunities: screens for lower-end phones and tablets.
Now this is the reality check.
The Profits to Revenue is a real eye opener.
Imagine the Revenue and Profits results for 280 Million iOS sold devices.
Sorry, but the race to the bottom is exactly where Samsung and the rest of the Android world is headed.
Imagine the Revenue and Profits results for 280 Million iOS sold devices.
Sorry, but the race to the bottom is exactly where Samsung and the rest of the Android world is headed.
So when you complained about the lack of balance sheet numbers it wasn't with regard to activations then? Your original post wasn't clear to me. What you really wanted to know is how much profit Google is seeing from all the Android activity, correct? I think directly it would still be zero. I don't pay enough attention to quarterly details for any of the mobile players (I don't have a financial interest in any of them) to know how much they break down the numbers so that specific revenue sources can be ID'd
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
...
Your calculations actually support Rubin's numbers. At 70% year over year growth rate of the smartphone market, we could expect close to 500 million smartphones sold for 2011 (calculated from your first sentence).
At an yearly average of 500k activations per day, you're looking at close to 180 million Android devices per year.
That makes Android's share close to 36% on average for 2011. It will be lower in the beginning and higher at the end of the year.
The number 86.7% that you calculate is wrong, since you base it on 2010's smartphone sales but end of 2011 Android activations.
There are many measure of business success, including, but not limited to;
- Annual / Quarterly revenues
- Annual / Quarterly profits
- Cost control
- Profit Margin
- Market Capital Value
- Market share
- R&D investment
- Green credentials
- No of employees - direct
- No of employees - as a direct consequence of supplier relationships
- Creation of new business opportunities (i.e. developers on your platform)
So the argument that Apple is failing because it doesn't dominate market share is madness. Every business has it's target audience, so you can opt for high volume but know that margins will be slim, or opt for high margins at the consequence of market share, or a balance of both.
Would you consider Ferrari a failed company? It is no-where in market share of the whole car market, but is a high margin / low volume business.
Is Wal-mart a failure because it operates on slim margins? No, it has volume!
Looking at the Personal Computer market;
- Yes MS Windows still dominates, but how much money does Microsoft make per PC sold versus how much money does Apple get per Mac sale?
- What was the Microsoft anti-trust case about? Yes, giving products away. Sound familar?
- Apple's market share continues to grow, even in the post-PC era.
So if you look at the smartphone market in detail you find,
- Apple takes the majority of sale profit
- Apple gains further revenues from each iOS device through sales on the App Store and iTunes
- Developers are attracted to iOS as it has been shown that iOS customers spend more on apps that those of other platforms
- Android is becoming very fragmented with numerous versions and variations as a result of manufacturer modifications. This makes it less likely that users will get updates, or if they do, it may be only one major update plus minor updates.
- Android phones are often seen as a stepping stone for those coming from the a non-smartphone but cannot afford the iPhone. This is something Apple is addressing by keeping the 3GS but at a lower price point.
Then look at Google's business model;
- why do they give Android to handset manufacturers for free? Because that this not where they see the money. Money comes from two sources; targetted advertising and selling your information to 3rd parties for advertising purposes.
- this business model only works when the number of eyeballs is maximised. That is why Google has so many free services and products.
Finally, consider these points;
- High market share means that you become the main target for scammers. Have you read recently about the Malware on the Android marketplace??
- Do you really want your usage of your handset to be sold so that advertisers can target you??
Lets wait a couple of years and then judge who has 'won' and who has 'failed', and even if Android is still supported by Google!?!
So the argument that Apple is failing because it doesn't dominate market share is madness.
Nobody is making such an argument. Apple is not failing, quite the contrary. Remove the straw man, and the rest of your post becomes obviously pointless.
The retort to "where are the profits", or "as one manufacturer Apple is winning" are defeatist.
Apple may well catch Android next year - that 700K is not insurmountable, and seems to be a slowdown in the rate of growth.
The bullish arguments for this quarter are 32M iPhones, 18M iPods, 13.5 M iPads.
Assume 9M of the iPods are iPod touches, you get 32M + 9M + 13.5M = 54.5M.
Thats about 600K a day, and Android has just reached 700K - week before Christmas, it will drop off during and after Christmas.
Apple is still sitting on large margins, and is not available everywhere - i.e. not really in Brazil, no presence in India, not on All Chinese carriers. Lower prices next year - I mean off contract - including a lower priced iPad, and a cheap as chips 3GS, along with the IP4, IP4S and iP5.
Apple hasn't really even competed yet - not on phones anyway. ASP is too high. They may not ever, but if they do they can win a lot of this back.
Well, now it's has come to the point that Apple cannot announce activation numbers anymore. Android is overtaking much faster than anyone anticipated. It seems as though Apple can never get ahead no matter what they produce. Except for iTunes and iPod, everything else flames out or ends up 2nd, 3rd or stuck as a niche player.
There are overlapping markets here. Apple is 1st among the niche market of people who use mobile applications. They are probably 1st in the niche market of those who use their smartphone as a smartphone. You can of course skew statistics in any way you want, but Android is trailing in many places that put them at a competitive disadvantage. If you look at statistics like retention, profit, diversity of apps, and app store sales then Android is significantly trailing. Most of these Android phones are also built to a lower quality then the iPhone they are compared to. This is like comparing a Chevy Aveo to a Toyota Camry. Obviously they are not aimed at the same markets.
Comments
Touting 700k activations without defining "activations" is simply misleading.
Between the crap flowing from Schmidt, and now Rubin, I dont know who is the better liar.
Gosh, it sure seems that Google is a propoganda machine of late.
Touting 700k activations without defining "activations" is simply misleading.
Between the crap flowing from Schmidt, and now Rubin, I dont know who is the better liar.
they did define activations...the mere fact that you choose not to accept that definition doesn't mean that they didn't define it.
Gosh, it sure seems that Google is a propoganda machine of late.
Touting 700k activations without defining "activations" is simply misleading.
Between the crap flowing from Schmidt, and now Rubin, I dont know who is the better liar.
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
Define activations.
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
...are there a dozen or so posts here debating the metric in the first place???
Um, ok.
Define activations.
It's what you did when you bought your iPhone. You activated it with a carrier so it could be used as one.
...are there a dozen or so posts here debating the metric in the first place???
Because many here find the facts too hard to accept. To the fear, they add uncertainty and denial.
...are there a dozen or so posts here debating the metric in the first place???
No, there's a dozen doubters perhaps looking for some way to brush the statement away.
Google considers an activation to be just what most of us would. You buy a smartphone and have a carrier activate it so it can be used as one. Google's activation numbers don't include resold devices (repeats) or software updates, with each device only counted once. The numbers also don't include any forked versions of Android since they don't have a license to Google services. Asian knock-offs, the Kindle Fire, the Nook Color or any other device not offering a license to Google services aren't counted in their activation numbers.
Are you still confused?
Apparently you didn't read the article you're commenting on. It includes Google defining what activations means. Spend a minute with the AI article and it will all become clear.
It's what you did when you bought your iPhone. You activated it with a carrier so it could be used as one.
700k android devices. (define devices???)
Sure, most are phones, and the release says they are new activations...
But isnt in the realm of possibility that Google is inflating these numbers for media hype?
Corporate execs have done far less to bolster their position in highly competitive markets.
700k android devices. (define devices???)
Sure, most are phones, and the release says they are new activations...
But isnt in the realm of possibility that Google is inflating these numbers for media hype?
Corporate execs have done far less to bolster their position in highly competitive markets.
You might be one of those I mentioned earlier then. There are going to be certain posters who won't trust any answer other than one that comes from Apple.
I don't think there's anything else that might satisfy you if "in the realm of possibility" is the threshold.
You might be one of those I mentioned earlier then. There are going to be certain posters who won't trust any answer other than one that comes from Apple.
I don't think there's anything else that might satisfy you if "in the realm of possibility" is the threshold.
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archi...hone_sale.html
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
I'm impressed with their percentage of the Smartphone Market profits.
Samsung reveals some real numbers:
http://phandroid.com/2011/01/28/smar...s-coming-soon/
They weren?t shy about the success of their Samsung Galaxy S, announcing they?ve sold 10 million units and also enjoyed ?strong year-end demand? with the Galaxy Tab. But the Galaxy S wasn?t their only winner: they sold 280 million units on the year, making me wonder what the device-by-device breakdown would be. Other stats they slide into their smartphone summary include:
- Record 4th quarter operating profit of 1.3 Billion (up 38%)
- 4th quarter revenue of 12.8 Billion
- Total 2010 Revenue = 37 Billion
- Total 2010 Profit = 3.8 Billion
While the Galaxy S hit a sweet spot, Samsung is planning to grow in two related and nearby opportunities: screens for lower-end phones and tablets.Now this is the reality check.
The Profits to Revenue is a real eye opener.
Imagine the Revenue and Profits results for 280 Million iOS sold devices.
Sorry, but the race to the bottom is exactly where Samsung and the rest of the Android world is headed.
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archi...hone_sale.html
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
I'm impressed with their percentage of the Smartphone Market profits.
Samsung reveals some real numbers:
http://phandroid.com/2011/01/28/smar...s-coming-soon/
Now this is the reality check.
The Profits to Revenue is a real eye opener.
Imagine the Revenue and Profits results for 280 Million iOS sold devices.
Sorry, but the race to the bottom is exactly where Samsung and the rest of the Android world is headed.
Thanks for that info.
Google is in the advertising game. Not the phone game. So their agenda IS to bloat and gloat.
Serves their purposes.
Your info supports my point exactly. Activations sounds sexy, but what is it relative too?
To Googles agenda, 7,000,000 per day would be a better number to flaunt.
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archi...hone_sale.html
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
I'm impressed with their percentage of the Smartphone Market profits.
Samsung reveals some real numbers:
http://phandroid.com/2011/01/28/smar...s-coming-soon/
Now this is the reality check.
The Profits to Revenue is a real eye opener.
Imagine the Revenue and Profits results for 280 Million iOS sold devices.
Sorry, but the race to the bottom is exactly where Samsung and the rest of the Android world is headed.
So when you complained about the lack of balance sheet numbers it wasn't with regard to activations then? Your original post wasn't clear to me. What you really wanted to know is how much profit Google is seeing from all the Android activity, correct? I think directly it would still be zero. I don't pay enough attention to quarterly details for any of the mobile players (I don't have a financial interest in any of them) to know how much they break down the numbers so that specific revenue sources can be ID'd
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archi...hone_sale.html
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
...
Your calculations actually support Rubin's numbers. At 70% year over year growth rate of the smartphone market, we could expect close to 500 million smartphones sold for 2011 (calculated from your first sentence).
At an yearly average of 500k activations per day, you're looking at close to 180 million Android devices per year.
That makes Android's share close to 36% on average for 2011. It will be lower in the beginning and higher at the end of the year.
The number 86.7% that you calculate is wrong, since you base it on 2010's smartphone sales but end of 2011 Android activations.
- Annual / Quarterly revenues
- Annual / Quarterly profits
- Cost control
- Profit Margin
- Market Capital Value
- Market share
- R&D investment
- Green credentials
- No of employees - direct
- No of employees - as a direct consequence of supplier relationships
- Creation of new business opportunities (i.e. developers on your platform)
So the argument that Apple is failing because it doesn't dominate market share is madness. Every business has it's target audience, so you can opt for high volume but know that margins will be slim, or opt for high margins at the consequence of market share, or a balance of both.
Would you consider Ferrari a failed company? It is no-where in market share of the whole car market, but is a high margin / low volume business.
Is Wal-mart a failure because it operates on slim margins? No, it has volume!
Looking at the Personal Computer market;
- Yes MS Windows still dominates, but how much money does Microsoft make per PC sold versus how much money does Apple get per Mac sale?
- What was the Microsoft anti-trust case about? Yes, giving products away. Sound familar?
- Apple's market share continues to grow, even in the post-PC era.
So if you look at the smartphone market in detail you find,
- Apple takes the majority of sale profit
- Apple gains further revenues from each iOS device through sales on the App Store and iTunes
- Developers are attracted to iOS as it has been shown that iOS customers spend more on apps that those of other platforms
- Android is becoming very fragmented with numerous versions and variations as a result of manufacturer modifications. This makes it less likely that users will get updates, or if they do, it may be only one major update plus minor updates.
- Android phones are often seen as a stepping stone for those coming from the a non-smartphone but cannot afford the iPhone. This is something Apple is addressing by keeping the 3GS but at a lower price point.
Then look at Google's business model;
- why do they give Android to handset manufacturers for free? Because that this not where they see the money. Money comes from two sources; targetted advertising and selling your information to 3rd parties for advertising purposes.
- this business model only works when the number of eyeballs is maximised. That is why Google has so many free services and products.
Finally, consider these points;
- High market share means that you become the main target for scammers. Have you read recently about the Malware on the Android marketplace??
- Do you really want your usage of your handset to be sold so that advertisers can target you??
Lets wait a couple of years and then judge who has 'won' and who has 'failed', and even if Android is still supported by Google!?!
...
So the argument that Apple is failing because it doesn't dominate market share is madness.
Nobody is making such an argument. Apple is not failing, quite the contrary. Remove the straw man, and the rest of your post becomes obviously pointless.
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archi...hone_sale.html
In 2010 298 million smartphones were sold worldwide, up from 175 million in 2009, for a growth rate of 70%.
At 700k Android device activations, per day, you're looking at 255.5 million devices.
Sorry, but that's 86.7% of total world wide sales last year for smart phones.
Now this is the reality check - it's 2011 and it was estimated that 115 million smartphone were sold in Q3.
Apple may well catch Android next year - that 700K is not insurmountable, and seems to be a slowdown in the rate of growth.
The bullish arguments for this quarter are 32M iPhones, 18M iPods, 13.5 M iPads.
Assume 9M of the iPods are iPod touches, you get 32M + 9M + 13.5M = 54.5M.
Thats about 600K a day, and Android has just reached 700K - week before Christmas, it will drop off during and after Christmas.
Apple is still sitting on large margins, and is not available everywhere - i.e. not really in Brazil, no presence in India, not on All Chinese carriers. Lower prices next year - I mean off contract - including a lower priced iPad, and a cheap as chips 3GS, along with the IP4, IP4S and iP5.
Apple hasn't really even competed yet - not on phones anyway. ASP is too high. They may not ever, but if they do they can win a lot of this back.
Well, now it's has come to the point that Apple cannot announce activation numbers anymore. Android is overtaking much faster than anyone anticipated. It seems as though Apple can never get ahead no matter what they produce. Except for iTunes and iPod, everything else flames out or ends up 2nd, 3rd or stuck as a niche player.
There are overlapping markets here. Apple is 1st among the niche market of people who use mobile applications. They are probably 1st in the niche market of those who use their smartphone as a smartphone. You can of course skew statistics in any way you want, but Android is trailing in many places that put them at a competitive disadvantage. If you look at statistics like retention, profit, diversity of apps, and app store sales then Android is significantly trailing. Most of these Android phones are also built to a lower quality then the iPhone they are compared to. This is like comparing a Chevy Aveo to a Toyota Camry. Obviously they are not aimed at the same markets.